and is chaired by the Community Health Worker within that community. This committee is in charge of health affairs in their community. I therefore conducted three FGDs, one from each of the three communities sampled. A TBA is also a member of this committee.
Each community also has a village development committee (VDC) constituted of nine members as well. However, only Kiduukule had a VDC, since the other communities did not have an agricultural component in them. I therefore held only one FGD for VDC members in the community of Kiduukule.
Lastly, I organized three FGDs for community members; one from each community. Selection for these was based on gender and participation in EDF programmes (see table below).
Table 2: Sample, data sources, data collection period and methods Information
Source
& data collection period)
Oct/Nov’
2010
Dec’2010 – Feb’ 2011 March- May
June/July’
2011
Aug’ 2011
8 EDF permanent staff
Orientation/
Observation/
Document analysis
Observation/Interview
Data collection break/data transcription
Observation
Information check &
debriefing/
presentation of
preliminary findings 4 External Resource
persons
Observation/ Interview Observation
3 Groups of CDWs (21 participants)
Observation/FGDs Photovoice
Observation 1 Group of VDC (8
participants)
Observation/FGDs Observation
3 Groups of VHCs (22 participants )
Observation/ FGDs Observation
3 Groups with Community members (24 participants)
Observation/ FGDs
Observation Organizational
culture
Documents/ Observation Observation
Note: A daily journal was also kept throughout the entire fieldwork period (see data collection methods below)
words, the nature and form of reality is defined differently. The different stances of knowing have come to be known as research paradigms (Nieuwenhuis, 2007b). The term ‘paradigm’
describes a set of ideas or a worldview used by researchers to generate knowledge. They range from scientific or positivist, to interpretive or constructivist, to the critical paradigm (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson, 2002). Paradigms guide the nature of researchers’ inquiry along three dimensions, that is, ontology, epistemology and methodology (Blanche, 1999).
Ontology relates to the nature and form of reality that is out there for conceptualization, that is, what knowledge or reality exists and what can be known about it. Epistemology relates to the relationship between what can be known and the knower or researcher. The scientific (positivist) paradigm, for example, holds that, since knowledge already exists somewhere, the researcher must take a detached position in the process of coming to know. Lastly, methodology deals with the procedure by which knowledge can be generated or uncovered (Blanche, 1999; Chilisa &
Preece, 2005; Guba, 1990, 1994; Khazanchi & Munkvold, 2002; Nieuwenhuis, 2007b).
Another important aspect in the process of inquiry is axiology, which is the nature of values and their role in knowledge construction (Chilisa & Preece, 2005). A number of researchers such as Guba (1990), Guba and Lincoln (1994) and Usher, Bryant and Johnston (1997) have identified major paradigms that have informed research processes over time. I now discuss these paradigms to inform my choice of the paradigm guiding this study.
4.2.1 Positivism and Postpositivism
Positivism is traced to early scholars in the 19th century, particularly Auguste Comte, as an attempt to apply the methods of the natural sciences to social phenomena. According to Kim (2003, p. 10), ‘Comte’s conceptualization of positivism was based on scientific objectivity and observation through the five senses rather than subjective beliefs’. The positivist stance, which largely dominated the 19th and 20th Centuries, is rooted in the belief that there exist natural and physical laws determining all occurrences, including human behavior. It was held that reality is out there and the work of the researcher would just be to discover this reality by employing research techniques that would make it possible to uncover it (Fossey et al., 2002; Guba, 1990,
1994; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Khazanchi & Munkvold, 2002; Kim, 2003; Rubin & Rubin, 2005;
Voce, 2004). Cohen et al., (2007, p. 26) note that, ‘positivism strives for objectivity, measurability, dependability, controllability, patterning, the construction of laws and rules of behavior, and the ascription of causality’.
Positivism has been criticized for treating research participants as interchangeable parts or scientific objects, thereby ignoring individual conceptions and values (Kim, 2003). Rubin and Rubin (2005) note that the over reliance on numerical figures to derive the meaning of situations falls short of capturing deeper attributes behind those figures. They further argue that:
Because they assume that truth can and should be measured with statistical precision, positivists routinely reduce complex information to numbers and ignore that which is difficult to quantify; because they seek general rules, they often ignore subtleties or unusual cases (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Postpositivism is an improved version of positivism. Having realized the weaknesses of positivism, its proponents wished to limit them by addressing a few concerns, while still maintaining that the scientific path is the right way to uncovering true knowledge (Guba, 1990).
Ontologically, postpositivism holds that, although a real world driven by real natural causes exists, it is impossible for humans to truly perceive it due to their imperfections and frailties.
Epistemologically, postpositivism recognizes the fact that it is impossible for the researcher to detach himself/herself from the research process. Methodologically, as a means of confronting the limitations of human objectivity, postpositivism recommends the use of multiple methods in data collection and triangulation as a means of checking the inconsistencies. John (2008) notes that the shift from positivism to postpositivism, though remaining rooted in the scientific method of prediction and control, opens up room for qualitative research as it acknowledges that reality cannot be fully and perfectly apprehended (Guba, 1990).
88
4.2.2 Interpretive paradigm
The interpretive paradigm emerged more as a critique to positivism as a means of studying the social world. Cohen et al. (2007) note that, whereas observed phenomena are important in positivism and postpositivism, it is the meanings and interpretations that are paramount in the interpretive paradigm. It was observed that the study of the social world requires a different approach that reflects the distinctiveness of humans as opposed to the natural order.
Therefore the major shift of interpretivism from positivism and postpositivism has been in the deeper interpretation of human action. Interpretivism aligns itself with hermeneutics and phenomenology. Hermeneutics is a concept that has an old usage in theology but has gradually been adopted by social scientists as a theory and method of interpretation of human actions. On the other hand, phenomenology is a philosophical perspective that holds that human behaviour can best be understood from a particular person’s point of view (Bryman, 2008; Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Usher et al., 1997). Bryman (2008) further adds that:
… it is the job of the social scientist to gain access to people’s ‘common-sense thinking’
and hence to interpret their actions and their social world from their point of view. It is this particular feature that social scientists claiming allegiance to phenomenology have typically emphasized (Bryman, 2008, p. 16).
Ontologically, the interpretive paradigm holds that the world is complex and dynamic and best interpreted by people in their interactions with each other. Therefore reality is subjective and can only be grasped imperfectly. Epistemologically, it is held that knowledge or reality is constructed according to how people make meaning in their lives. Therefore observer intersubjectivity is very important. It calls for research methodologies which are interactional, interpretive and of a qualitative nature (Blanche, 1999; Fossey et al., 2002; Khazanchi & Munkvold, 2002; Thomas, 1989; Voce, 2004). However, Nieuwenhuis (2007) faults the interpretive paradigm for its subjectivity and failure to generalize findings beyond the situations being studied.
4.2.3 Constructivism paradigm
Constructivism emerges as a near ally of the interpretive paradigm though largely in ontological terms. The shift of constructivism from interpretivism is that the power positions in society are relative and transitional but also a construct of the knower. It presents a total shift from the objectivism held by positivists and postpositivists. Reality is instead a social construct of the knower. Therefore, social phenomena and meaning are continuously being shaped by social actors. The researcher’s view is his or her own construction of the world view rather than a definitive reality (Bryman, 2008; Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Constructivism is more interested in the research participant’s view of the world through specific positions, than in averages and recurrent opinions. However, when personal views are of a shared group, then they are part of their culture and constitute an interest to constructionists (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Rubin and Rubin (2005, p. 27) further note that: ‘In this sense, multiple and even conflicting versions of the same event or object can be true at the same time’.
Ontologically, constructivism believes in relativism, since knowledge is a social construct of the knower. Epistemologically, the researcher must take a subjective position as the only way to unlock positions held by individuals, including the inquirer. The methodological approach is dialectical as a means of harmonizing the sophisticated positions (Blanche, 1999; Guba, 1990, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
4.2.4 Critical theory paradigm
Critical theory is heavily influenced by the early work of Habermas and to some extent his predecessors in the Frankfurt school, notably Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer and Fromm (Cohen et al., 2007). Rubin and Rubin (2005) are in agreement with Guba (1990), that critical theory is a conglomeration of research orientations such as neo-Marxism, materialism, feminism, Freireism, participatory inquiry, emancipatory, queer, postmodern and critical race theories, which emphasize standpoint theory. Standpoint theory is sometimes referred to as ‘ideologically oriented inquiry’, because it emphasizes whose standpoint or point of view one takes.
90
As Fossey (2002, p. 720) notes: ‘Its aim is to engage key stakeholders as participants in the design and conduct of the research, diminishing the distinction between the ‘researcher’ and the
‘researched’. The purpose of critical inquiry is best put by Cohen et al., (2007), when they note that:
Here the expressed intention is deliberately political – the emancipation of individuals and groups in an egalitarian society … its intention is not merely to give an account of society and behavior but to realize a society that is based on equality and democracy for all its members. Its purpose is not merely to understand situations and phenomena but to change them. In particular it seeks to emancipate the disempowered, to redress inequality and to promote individual freedoms within a democratic society (Cohen et al., 2007, p.
26).
Ontologically, reality in the critical paradigm is not absolute but shaped by human values, perspectives and conditions in which they live. There is also epistemological subjectivity because inquiry is value-laden. Methodologically, critical theorists approach research from a dialogical point of view, seeking to eliminate false consciousness that attempts to rally participants around a common view (Guba, 1990, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Nieuwenhuis, 2007b; Rubin & Rubin, 2005; Usher et al., 1997).
Critical theory has not escaped criticism. Usher et al., (1997) observe that critical theory overemphasizes rationality and in so doing marginalizes the ‘irrational’, that is, the contingent, affective and poetic dimensions of life. Its grounding in basic needs is considered essentialist and invariant. Equally so, its basic tenet of emancipation that is held as universal, is considered an overstatement.
Notwithstanding its limitations, this study was conducted within a critical theory paradigm (Carr
& Kemmis, 1986; Guba, 1990, 1994; Heron & Reason, 1997; Leonardo, 2004; Plack, 2005;
Stinson, 2009). The work of EDF, being focused on principles of empowerment together with this study’s goal of tapping into local knowledge and capabilities, coupled with the use of
theoretical frameworks rooted in radical adult education, necessitated the choice of the critical theory paradigm.
Critical theory as a research paradigm is not necessarily about challenging the existing practices of the system, but of seeking to understand what makes the system be the way it is, and challenging that, whilst remaining conscious that one's own sense of justice and equality are themselves open to question (Tripp, 1992). Usher et al., (1997, p. 189), also support the choice of critical theory as a paradigm for this study, when they note that:
It is not difficult to see why Critical Theory and its approach to research has resonated with adult educators. Its discourse of basic social needs, of distortions and social consciousness, of critical dialogue, and its foregrounding of praxis, provide an appealing foundation of theory and practice for radical adult educators committed to social action.
Its aim of emancipation and empowerment provides a purposive goal for educational activity.
Freire (1972) also notes that as the participants in the inquiry begin to develop more informed insights, emancipatory action is facilitated to alleviate oppression, recreate the world, and develop a more egalitarian and democratic society. This study not only intended to uncover the understanding and practice of adult education through the case of EDF, but also to engage all stakeholders into critical reflection of their context, using adult education as an empowering and liberating process. Therefore, the ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology in this study relate to the critical theory paradigm (Voce, 2004).